What is racism?

False, AA was just a supplement for those with legacy issues. If there were slots reserved for legacy applicants AA made it fair, even adding additional seats or providing an alternate admission process often merit based between the AA qualified applicants.

If you were told anyone lost their seat to AA, you were fed a lie to get you to oppose it for the republican agenda. Like how they get others to oppose the very SS you live on now, and other policies that help the working class.

 

The problem lasted for generations and it will take generations to fix.

 

If you put this in a movie or a tv show it would have to be a comedy because people would laugh at how absurd and unrealistic it is.

 

And you won't fix it by making the same mistake and pushing race prejudice.

 

Hence it isn't the left as a whole or even as a large contingent, but a laughably small but vocal minority.

 

Good thing its not that.

 

So they just snapped there fingers and voila teachers and class space appeared as if by magic?

 

Except it is exactly that. You could do policy based on need or based on hardship instead of based on race, and yet you insist on doing it based on race. Why?

 

Lets do both.

 

Yes, my point was directed only at OP.

The definition of racism in my book relates to the subjective nature of the racist mindset, racism.

It is thinking that one's own race is superior to any other, or the converse, thinking that other races are inferior to one's own.

So, being racially aware is NOT racism. Recognizing that there are differences between races is NOT racism.

 

Like having different shaped eyes? Or like being prone to violence?

 

Being prone to violence is part of the human condition, across all races. Not sure of your point.

Different shaped eyes? Different from what?

 

Like all things, racism means something different to everybody.

In its present day popular usage, it has lost nearly all meaning allowing the fanatics to apply it to anybody who doesn't tow the line. The good news is that because it has no meaning, it has no staying power. It's like the CRT folks calling all white people racists. It's like drive-by defamation.

 

Ok, if person "a" scores higher on a college entry examination than person "b", but then person "b" is admitted to that college, and person "a" is DENIED, how is that fair? The answer should be most interesting....

 

Trying to get a sense of what you meant by difference between races. There isn't much of importance aside from susceptibility to some medical conditions.

 

Scholarships are a thing.
Volunteers to such programs are magic. There are times when registration is full to regular applicants, and open to legacy and AA applicants, then it becomes merit based.

 

Person B simply got accepted due to legacy privlages, person A was the AA applicant, and was later placed in a subsidized situation.

 

The subsidized position is vetted against late legacy registrations and is often merit based. The AA applicant beats out a late legacy candidate then the legacy candidate complains a minority took their spot.

How is that fair?

 

If it means something different to everyone is is by definition meaningless. This one of the biggest problems with the left. They so misuse and bastardize the language that words like nazi, fascist, and racist no longer have any meaning other than someone leftist don't like

 

You just contradicted your self.

 

As an electrician, a contradiction leads to an explosion.

More then likely Its a miscommunication, see im holding the hot, yet im not dead..I lived through this.

Where did you get lost,
The part where its merit based?

 

When you said that regular applicant were closed and only legacy and AA apps were still you did not prove that those were extra slots you told me that out of the total number slots a certain number were reserved for legacy and AA and that legacy and AA are not really merit based but special selection slots

 

Prove.....how to proof my anecdotal experience.
Its not a contradiction, but you need it proofed. Fair enough.

I can only stay free of contridictions as proof honestly. So far the math works out, and the fact that legacy admissions are being challanged with other testimony should be a factor that it was not a one sided deal.

I call them extra slots because they arnt open to non legacy, or previously the AA program.

 

You can believe as you wish. I can't stop you. There are only x number of slots in total if you got one then some one else didn't. And I make no pretense that it is a one sided deal only that there are not unlimited positions at any school or even all schools combined. So you go a slot reserved for a minority student, that means some other minority didn't get that slot at the very least and that you did. That says nothing bad about you merely that you had a competitive advantage and you have since turned that to your advantage and good on you for doing so. In a world full of traps and snare you managed to avoid most of them and prosper. Not every one does.

 

Might want to look again....the tweet didn't come from a 'small but vocal minority'.